US constitution- freedom of religion and speech

[Athena]

Questions 1 and 2 can be answered with a yes or no, and I you explain why. Question 3 is a how question.

 

Do you believe freedom of religion should be protected by constitutions?

 

How about freedom of speech?

 

How are such are these freedoms protected?

[doG]

Questions 1 and 2 can be answered with a yes or no, and I you explain why. Question 3 is a how question.

 

Do you believe freedom of religion should be protected by constitutions?

 

How about freedom of speech?

 

How are such are these freedoms protected?

Yes

Yes

 

The law cannot be used against you for your choice of religion, or lack thereof, nor for your expression of speech. Unlike Kim Jong's constituents I can call Obama a moron without fear of being imprisoned for doing so. BTW, I'm an equal opportunity presidential bash in that I think both Bushes, Clinton, Carter and several more were also morons!

[zapatos]

Questions 1 and 2 can be answered with a yes or no, and I you explain why. Question 3 is a how question.

 

Do you believe freedom of religion should be protected by constitutions?

 

How about freedom of speech?

 

How are such are these freedoms protected?

Freedom of religion should be protected by the constitution because it is likely that without this guarantee, the free practice of religion would be severly constrained.

 

Freedom of speech should also be protected. I cannot imagine a government by the people being successful without this right.

 

They are protected by law. I'm not quite sure what you are looking for here.

[Athena]

Yes

Yes

 

The law cannot be used against you for your choice of religion, or lack thereof, nor for your expression of speech. Unlike Kim Jong's constituents I can call Obama a moron without fear of being imprisoned for doing so. BTW, I'm an equal opportunity presidential bash in that I think both Bushes, Clinton, Carter and several more were also morons!

 

Okay, and if a forum owner prevented you from saying what you think, whose rights do you think will come first? Your right to freedom of speech or the forum owners right to control what gets posted and who can or can not post?

[doG]

Okay, and if a forum owner prevented you from saying what you think, whose rights do you think will come first? Your right to freedom of speech or the forum owners right to control what gets posted and who can or can not post?

The constitutional right to free speech is a constraint on the government from prohibiting free speech, not a right of an individual to say whatever they want on someone else's private property. Your local library has every right to tell you to be quiet or get out and so does the owner of a private forum.

[Athena]

Freedom of religion should be protected by the constitution because it is likely that without this guarantee, the free practice of religion would be severly constrained.

 

Freedom of speech should also be protected. I cannot imagine a government by the people being successful without this right.

 

They are protected by law. I'm not quite sure what you are looking for here.

 

Many forums have rules against preaching. Of course this means stating a religious point of view, not preaching about the evils of wheat. This common practice and the defense of it, has caused me to question how much longer we might have freedom of religion?

 

The really big question is, how are our freedoms protected?

[zapatos]

Many forums have rules against preaching. Of course this means stating a religious point of view, not preaching about the evils of wheat. This common practice and the defense of it, has caused me to question how much longer we might have freedom of religion?

 

The really big question is, how are our freedoms protected?

This common practice has nothing to do with freedom of religion in the US.

 

Our freedoms are protected by law.

[Athena]

The constitutional right to free speech is a constraint on the government from prohibiting free speech, not a right of an individual to say whatever they want on someone else's private property. Your local library has every right to tell you to be quiet or get out and so does the owner of a private forum.

 

Good argument. I also know we can be silenced in public hearings, because we can be arrested for criminal trespassing if we are told to be silent and we do not remain silent. However, outside the building where talking does little good, we can say pretty much anything we please.

 

But the bottom line is, how do we protect our freedoms?

 

This common practice has nothing to do with freedom of religion in the US.

 

Our freedoms are protected by law.

 

Hum, by law? What about culture? Our laws can be changed. What protects our freedoms if it is not the culture?

Edited April 20, 2012 by Athena

[doG]

Good argument. I also know we can be silenced in public hearings, because we can be arrested for criminal trespassing if we are told to be silent and we do not remain silent. However, outside the building where talking does little good, we can say pretty much anything we please.

 

But the bottom line is, how do we protect our freedoms?

 

 

 

Hum, by law? What about culture? Our laws can be changed. What protects our freedoms if it is not the culture?

Our constitution can only be changed by us, the people. It is the law that protects our freedom of speech, unless we the people decide to change it. That is our protection.

 

Culture? What do you mean by culture if it is not the people?

[zapatos]

Hum, by law? What about culture? Our laws can be changed. What protects our freedoms if it is not the culture?

Yes, by law. Culture can change. Cultures can vary from place to place. What protects our freedoms if it is not laws?

[Athena]

Our constitution can only be changed by us, the people. It is the law that protects our freedom of speech, unless we the people decide to change it. That is our protection.

 

Culture? What do you mean by culture if it is not the people?

 

People are not born with culture; they learn it. In my life time, culture has changed a lot, some for the good and some not so good. We are far more concerned with being technologically correct and our liberty has taken major hits. Until 1958 public education transmitted a culture, and since then we have educated for a technological society with unknown values. Some people think I talk too much about this, but some of the changes do worry a lot. Actually, many of our good laws came from the bible and are no longer effective. I wish I were smart enough to be precise about the legal changes. Anyway, our culture has changed and so have the laws.

 

Yes, by law. Culture can change. Cultures can vary from place to place. What protects our freedoms if it is not laws?

 

I believe culture is the most important factor. I already address this and don't want to be repeating myself, and irritating everyone, but do I want to be clear. I am concerned about our liberty and freedom and cultural changes. The people of the US lived for a love God, and that is being replaced with a love for technological correctness, with perhaps some unpleasant social ramifications. I tried to discuss this in the thread about justifying a belief in God, and that thread got too tense, with at least one poster being suspended, and a lot of anger directed at me, so I dropped out of it. Our culture has changed, and I am not sure it is supportive of religious freedom any more. This has much greater social ramifications than we might realize. We have become less humane and caring of others, as we are more concerned about being technologically correct.

[Vent]

I don't think religion should be in politics or law at all, either for or against, so its freedom is protected by default. Same with freedom of speech. So my answers on these grounds would be

 

no

no

 

Culture is important in some places, UK for example. Parliament is bound by customs in a lot of things; as in there is a customary way of doing certain things so there is no legislature binding them (half or more of our constitution is unwritten for example). I'd say this was quite cultural as opposed to legal. There's pluses and minuses for customs though, like there is for written constitutions also.

[CaptainPanic]

Yes

Yes

 

But there is also a freedom to use your head, a freedom not-to-insult, a freedom to use common sense, and a freedom to not-be-a-bloody-idiot.

 

It's those latter freedoms that many people forget, and they make the first two freedoms (religion and speech) a bit fundamentalist. That sucks.

 

Yes, yes, I know that the language used in this post is not exactly your "legal vocabulary", but that's exactly where we have a problem. It's bloody difficult to catch common sense in a few paragraphs of legal text, and that enables the fundamentalists to read between the lines that they can behave like morons.

[swansont]

But there is also a freedom to use your head, a freedom not-to-insult, a freedom to use common sense, and a freedom to not-be-a-bloody-idiot.

 

It's those latter freedoms that many people forget, and they make the first two freedoms (religion and speech) a bit fundamentalist. That sucks.

 

Yes, yes, I know that the language used in this post is not exactly your "legal vocabulary", but that's exactly where we have a problem. It's bloody difficult to catch common sense in a few paragraphs of legal text, and that enables the fundamentalists to read between the lines that they can behave like morons.

 

Being free to do something does not mean you are mandated to do it. The freedom not-to-insult is a subset of freedom of speech (or expression), but mandating that you don't insult can be an infringement of freedom of speech. In the US these rights are expressed as the government not having the power to inhibit or infringe.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[CaptainPanic]

Being free to do something does not mean you are mandated to do it. The freedom not-to-insult is a subset of freedom of speech (or expression), but mandating that you don't insult can be an infringement of freedom of speech. In the US these rights are expressed as the government not having the power to inhibit or infringe.

I never said anything about mandating anything. The freedom of speech is an absolute, and should not be curtailed.

 

But people should take responsibility for the things they say, rather than hide behind their freedom of speech.

[swansont]

But people should take responsibility for the things they say, rather than hide behind their freedom of speech.

 

I don't see how freedom of speech is something that deflects your responsibility. Do you have some examples in mind?

[CaptainPanic]

I don't see how freedom of speech is something that deflects your responsibility. Do you have some examples in mind?

Sure. I'll give 3 different examples.

 

1. I think one of the better examples was that drawing of someone's prophet, just to show off that it's allowed in our society. Nobody thought that the drawing was particularly funny, and it served no purpose other than provocation.

 

2. Populist (right wing) politicians also enjoy predudices against people. It's their right to say this to win votes. But it's not actually solving any problems to just point your finger. Racists often hide behind the freedom of speech.

 

3. I've seen some people getting warnings here on our forum for trolling or soapboxing, who then said "but it's my freedom of speech", when they themselves clearly broke our rules.

[Sergeant Bilko]

I never said anything about mandating anything. The freedom of speech is an absolute, and should not be curtailed.

 

 

That all depends doesn't it? Surely freedom of speech has some limitations, in the UK we have a law against inciting racial hatred http://en.wikipedia....r_racial_hatred which makes it a criminal offence to incite racism or ethnic hatred.

 

 

 

I have quoted Eleanor Roosevelt on here before, "with freedom comes responsibility"

[CaptainPanic]

That all depends doesn't it? Surely freedom of speech has some limitations, in the UK we have a law against inciting racial hatred http://en.wikipedia....r_racial_hatred which makes it a criminal offence to incite racism or ethnic hatred.

 

 

 

I have quoted Eleanor Roosevelt on here before, "with freedom comes responsibility"

My point exactly. And I'm taking back my words that it's not to be curtailed. It is. If you and swansont hadn't replied so quickly (i.e. if you had given me another 24 hrs - I'm slow today), I would have edited it out, because I disagree with my own post.

There are indeed a few cases where other laws limit the freedom of speech, and I agree with them. Like you say, racism is not allowed in the Netherlands either.

[Athena]

I don't think religion should be in politics or law at all, either for or against, so its freedom is protected by default. Same with freedom of speech. So my answers on these grounds would be

 

no

no

 

Culture is important in some places, UK for example. Parliament is bound by customs in a lot of things; as in there is a customary way of doing certain things so there is no legislature binding them (half or more of our constitution is unwritten for example). I'd say this was quite cultural as opposed to legal. There's pluses and minuses for customs though, like there is for written constitutions also.

 

I gave in a + because I appreciate your argument.

 

From the beginning of time, law has been based on people's cosmology. This is also true today, and atheist without a God shape our laws differently than those who hold a concept of God.

 

But this is not just about believers and non believers, because Germans were strong Christians and also the enemy of the US. Here the conflict was not believers verses non believers, but authority verses liberty, and since the US has imitated Germany in significant ways, the US is becoming less liberal and more authoritarian. The movie "The Reader" is perfect for making this point. We have accepted the same relationship to authority, for which the female lead of the movie is persecuted. Christianity without education for democracy is not a good thing, but has gotten us in a serious mess!

 

England has a history of religious wars, and if a Catholic was ruling, land would be taken from Protestants and given to Catholics. When a Protestant was ruling, land would be taken from Catholics and given to Protestants. John Locke was opposed to this, and claimed ownership depended on the human effect put into the property. Obviously the past religious customs stopped. Revolt with the round heads (Puritans) seems to have led to more religious tolerance.

 

In Russia, the church supported the practice of land owners having serfs, leading to the communist revolt and forbidding religion. Because I am opposed to religious beliefs ruling people's minds and votes, more than logic, I sometimes wonder if freedom of religion is a good thing. That is why I argue "God" is essential to our liberty. This is not the God of Abraham, which comes with mythology. It is the unknown God, the X factor, that hopefully adds a little wisdom to our sciences and politics.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Athena

[Sergeant Bilko]

I gave in a + because I appreciate your argument.

 

From the beginning of time, law has been based on people's cosmology. This is also true today, and atheist without a God shape our laws differently than those who hold a concept of God.

 

Can you explain why you say this?

 

But this is not just about believers and non believers, because Germans were strong Christians and also the enemy of the US. Here the conflict was not believers verses non believers, but authority verses liberty, and since the US has imitated Germany in significant ways, the US is becoming less liberal and more authoritarian. The movie "The Reader" is perfect for making this point. We have accepted the same relationship to authority, for which the female lead of the movie is persecuted. Christianity without education for democracy is not a good thing, but has gotten us in a serious mess!

Again, I don't understand what you are trying to say. What has Christianity got to do with German/USA relations. In the reader the female lead was a concentration camp guard who was tried for war crimes, her alleged crimes had little to do with her inability to read.

England has a history of religious wars, and if a Catholic was ruling, land would be taken from Protestants and given to Catholics. When a Protestant was ruling, land would be taken from Catholics and given to Protestants. John Locke was opposed to this, and claimed ownership depended on the human effect put into the property. Obviously the past religious customs stopped. Revolt with the round heads (Puritans) seems to have led to more religious tolerance.

This is a rediculous interpretation of what has happened in England.

 

 

In Russia, the church supported the practice of land owners having serfs, leading to the communist revolt and forbidding religion. Because I am opposed to religious beliefs ruling people's minds and votes, more than logic, I sometimes wonder if freedom of religion is a good thing. That is why I argue "God" is essential to our liberty. This is not the God of Abraham, which comes with mythology. It is the unknown God, the X factor, that hopefully adds a little wisdom to our sciences and politics.

 

Once again, a misrepresentation. The church was controlled and financed by the landowners and was part of the state apparatus. The revolution was more about inequality than religion. However, why is "god" essential to our liberty? As far as I know most wars have been fought with "god" supposedly on both sides. God and Liberty are two words which can rarely be used in the same sentence.

[Athena]

That all depends doesn't it? Surely freedom of speech has some limitations, in the UK we have a law against inciting racial hatred http://en.wikipedia....r_racial_hatred which makes it a criminal offence to incite racism or ethnic hatred.

 

 

 

I have quoted Eleanor Roosevelt on here before, "with freedom comes responsibility"

 

Yes, another comment from the UK, this is delightful.

 

I do a lot preaching about only highly moral people can have liberty. My dog can not understand the danger of moving things, so he can not have liberty. My grandchildren do not get the liberty of walking without a leash or holding my hand, until they learn to stop when I say stop. I am 100% with Eleanor Roosevelt. With rights come duties, and with freedoms comes responsibility. And some of us who believe it is our responsibility to God and humanity to speak up are being silenced and this is the same wrong as the church committed.

 

It is easy to teach a child to obey, compared to teaching them responsibility and this is at the center of this debate. Someone preaching religion is feeling highly responsible. I don't think this is true of someone inciting racial hatred. This is why we have religious freedom, but not the freedom to violate democratic principles. Racism violates democratic principles.

 

Can we put together the above quote with

 

Parliament is bound by customs in a lot of things; as in there is a customary way of doing certain things so there is no legislature binding them (half or more of our constitution is unwritten for example). I'd say this was quite cultural as opposed to legal. There's pluses and minuses for customs though, like there is for written constitutions also.

 

The more a government governs, the less liberty everyone has. That is why the US and England focused their public education on good citizenship. Going from reasoning, and education, directly to law and rules, eats away at our liberty and freedom.

 

Sorry, this post is so complex, but that is the way reality is. Democracy and liberty depend on freedom of speech, and silencing someone who feels highly responsible, is not the same as enforcing the principles of democracy. Both religion and democracy require a concept of God.

 

Can you explain why you say this?

 

 

Again, I don't understand what you are trying to say. What has Christianity got to do with German/USA relations. In the reader the female lead was a concentration camp guard who was tried for war crimes, her alleged crimes had little to do with her inability to read.

 

This is a rediculous interpretation of what has happened in England.

 

 

 

 

Once again, a misrepresentation. The church was controlled and financed by the landowners and was part of the state apparatus. The revolution was more about inequality than religion. However, why is "god" essential to our liberty? As far as I know most wars have been fought with "god" supposedly on both sides. God and Liberty are two words which can rarely be used in the same sentence.

 

Darn I am out of time. This tears me up, because I'd love to devote myself completely to this discussion. Thanks for the question. I'll be back as soon as possible.

[imatfaal]

Okay, and if a forum owner prevented you from saying what you think, whose rights do you think will come first? Your right to freedom of speech or the forum owners right to control what gets posted and who can or can not post?

Legally - the situation has been discussed. From as far as I can see there is complete freedom of opinion and views are not censored (other than under rule 1 against prejudice/plagiarism/vulgarity). what can lead to moderation is the way that arguments are phrased, a refusal to enter debate, a reliance on logical fallacy

 

Many forums have rules against preaching. Of course this means stating a religious point of view, not preaching about the evils of wheat. This common practice and the defense of it, has caused me to question how much longer we might have freedom of religion?

 

The really big question is, how are our freedoms protected?

Many threads are closed in speculations (which have no connection to religion) because the OP insists on preaching/soap-boxing an idea and does not enter the debate with members who question his or her assertions. Unless I have missed deleted threads - the last post to be locked in the Religion forum was last month and was locked because it started with an un-necessarily aggressive stance against religious believers. The last one in speculations was 7 days ago and was due to a refusal to engage with questions asked by members. So yes - I believe if one were to preach about the evils of wheat, rather than question and discuss the evils of wheat, it would be against the rules.

 

There is no mention of religion in the rules about preaching and soapboxing nor I do not believe there was ever any intention that there should be, nor that this is implicitly the case due to the actions of the moderators.

 

8. Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

[swansont]

Sure. I'll give 3 different examples.

 

1. I think one of the better examples was that drawing of someone's prophet, just to show off that it's allowed in our society. Nobody thought that the drawing was particularly funny, and it served no purpose other than provocation.

 

2. Populist (right wing) politicians also enjoy predudices against people. It's their right to say this to win votes. But it's not actually solving any problems to just point your finger. Racists often hide behind the freedom of speech.

 

How does this absolve them of the responsibility for what they have said? It's sad that e.g. pandering wins votes, but that's not the same thing.

 

The true test of freedom of speech is not defending speech with which you agree — it's defending speech with which you disagree.

 

3. I've seen some people getting warnings here on our forum for trolling or soapboxing, who then said "but it's my freedom of speech", when they themselves clearly broke our rules.

 

They don't know that freedom of speech is between them and the government. This is an ignorance issue, not a rights issue.

[Vent]

Athena,

 

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but this "X factor" that you speak of is your idea of an objective standard that we can use for testing our actions against in order to build a future that is "good for us". Yes? Yet this idea you have has no substance as of now. It is something that you are wishing to find so that you "know" you are right, moral, sensible and forthright in your decisions towards the future that you seek. It would a tool that we could use to convince people of the legitimacy of various actions.

 

You have also created a target for action it seems, the target of liberty, and are convinced of its righteousness as a goal and believe there is this X factor that will prove to us that it was the true path of our race after all. I don't believe in the X factor i'm sorry. I think humans make their own standards and try and move in a direction that satisfies them. Even a standard such as happiness with its mundane chemical causes and gordian social causes is still a standard that various individual's [decide?] upon.

 

Of course, there's nothing wrong with arguing for liberty (or happiness), but this X factor is the weakest point of your argument. It is baseless at present and belongs in the realm of mysticism. Inciting it as a reason that people 'should' believe in it due to then being able to assent to the ideal of liberty more readily makes it more so. Solid arguments are built on solid foundations.

 

Apologies if i offend, and like i said, forgive me if i'm wrong